Global 2nd edition Q+A ( AAG40.2)

@Karl7:

@Karl7:

If an AA gun fires a rocket, does that constitute a combat action depriving the AA gun of a non-combat move?

I think I found the answer, and it is no, right?

Well, actually the rules don’t contain AA-fire against rockets.
Apart from this rocket attacks take place during your enemy’s turn, so the movement of your own units on your next turn is not affected.
But I am not sure if you meant that.

I case you meant AA guns just defending against Air Units (by shooting “rockets”), this action occurs during the enemy’s turn, too.
Again, the movement of your own units on your next turn is not affected.

HTH :-)

I think he meant that if you have the tech which is rockets.

AA guns shot the rockets in earlier versions, now it’s airbases

@Gamerman01:

AA guns shot the rockets in earlier versions, now it’s airbases

Thanks, this interpretation of the above issue did not come to my mind.

Happy if I can be helpful!
You answer all the questions that I can’t!  Awesome!

US Navy starts his turn in a hostile sz (95).
The US occupies Sicily and Sardinia in BM3 with Inf and Art.

The US can’t move out with TTs only in CM and move back in (after seabattle is solved) on NCM to load troops, Correct?

According to Page 21 in the Pac.'40 rulebook, Correct?

Yes.

Then this needs to be fixed in triple a i guess.
I was able to move all of my TTs on CM and moved them back in on NCM and load them.
(While i am thinking this not as bad as it is, being able to do so w. TTs)

My opponent locked my units on Sicily and Sardinia b/c all he needs to do is to buy a DD as long he has enough income.
Or getting somehow France or Anzak to clear the sz before US next turn (have fun w. that). Loophole  :|

Will adress this issue in the League section concerning BM.
This will make the NO less favourable hmm :?.
Thank you Simon

You may want to check out the game notes in Triple A that lists known items where Triple A does not follow the rule book

Go to Help -> Game Notes in the menu bar

One of the known flaws is that you can move units in the combat phase and also the noncombat phase, when only aircraft are supposed to be able to do this

OK, serious announcement:

As many of you may know, Gargantua and I are playing a G40 2nd game in Vancouver BC. Last night, I parked a UK DD among the Japanese transport fleet and declared war with Anzac.  Gargantua REFUSED to believe this was allowed despite the wording of the rule book and the FAQ.

Gargantua actually emailed and got a response from Larry Harris himself.  Gargantua can post the response himself, but basically Larry said that such a move “should not happen” but that he was NOT going to hand down a “Supreme Court ruling” banning the move.

I am not sure what this means.  Is the move now banned or just disapproved of?  Krieg, can you get some clarity on this?

As far as I know you can declare war on Japan as the UK or ANZAC at the beginning of the combat movement phase without even moving your units. If a state of war exists between either the UK or ANZAC and Japan, then the other is automatically at war with Japan too because they are both members of the British Empire. At that time the same would have been true with any other member of the British Empire. For instance, Canada would then have been at war with Japan. Although, the others are represented in this game with the British roundel and their participation is obvious.

If I understand you correctly, you are both right and wrong. Yes you could declare war on Japan when you moved your destroyer in but you had to declare war with UK which would have also resulted in a DOW from ANZAC. You could not have declared war with ANZAC alone by moving in like that.

@Karl7:

Last night, I parked a UK DD among the Japanese transport fleet and declared war with Anzac.

This scenario is perfectly legal, given it occurred like this:

• UK is not at war with Japan
• UK noncombat moved a destroyer into a seazone containing Japanese transports (or placed a newly built destroyer there). This is legal, because of
  @rulebook:

Movement: A power’s ships don’t block the naval movements of other powers with which it’s not at war, and vice versa.
They can occupy the same sea zones.

• So this seazone is not becoming hostile.
• On ANZAC’s turn, ANZAC declares war on Japan. This is legal, because of
  @rulebook:

ANZAC may declare war on Japan at the beginning of the Combat Move phase of any of its turns, resulting in a state of
war between Japan and both ANZAC and the United Kingdom.

• This brings UK into war with Japan and as a result the above seazone becomes hostile at that moment.

This is a common strategy to prevent Japan from loading its transports on Japan’s next move.
If ANZAC would not declare war on Japan this way, Japan on its next turn would be allowed to declare war on UK and load its transports, because of

@rulebook:

During your Combat Move phase in which you entered into a state of war, your transports that are already in sea zones that have just become hostile may be loaded
in those sea zones (but not in other hostile seazones).

Because of ANZAC’s DOW on Japan the seazone is hostile when it comes to Japan’s turn. So Japan may not load the transports then.

@P@nther:

@Karl7:

Last night, I parked a UK DD among the Japanese transport fleet and declared war with Anzac.

This scenario is perfectly legal, given it occurred like this:

• UK is not at war with Japan
• UK noncombat moved a destroyer into a seazone containing Japanese transports (or placed a newly built destroyer there). This is legal, because of
  @rulebook:

Movement: A power’s ships don’t block the naval movements of other powers with which it’s not at war, and vice versa.
They can occupy the same sea zones.

• So this seazone is not becoming hostile.
• On ANZAC’s turn, ANZAC declares war on Japan. This is legal, because of
  @rulebook:

ANZAC may declare war on Japan at the beginning of the Combat Move phase of any of its turns, resulting in a state of
war between Japan and both ANZAC and the United Kingdom.

• This brings UK into war with Japan and as a result the above seazone becomes hostile at that moment.

This is a common strategy to prevent Japan from loading its transports on Japan’s next move.
If ANZAC would not declare war on Japan this way, Japan on its next turn would be allowed to declare war on UK and load its transports, because of

@rulebook:

During your Combat Move phase in which you entered into a state of war, your transports that are already in sea zones that have just become hostile may be loaded
in those sea zones (but not in other hostile seazones).

Because of ANZAC’s DOW on Japan the seazone is hostile when it comes to Japan’s turn. So Japan may not load the transports then.

Yes it is legal, but now Larry has said something suggesting it is now illegal.  We need clarity on it.  Kreig?

It’s legal.

@Krieghund:

It’s legal.

Ok… so, Larry confirmed this despite what he told Gargantua?

Not to be a pest, but as you can imagine, Gargantua jumped down my throat waiving Larry’s post in my face saying Larry declared it illegal.

Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it.  But I do know that it’s legal.

@Krieghund:

Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it.  But I do know that it’s legal.

Hmm, maybe check with him?

@Karl7:

@Krieghund:

Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it.  But I do know that it’s legal.

Hmm, maybe check with him?

Again, I hate to be a pest, but this is a serious rule “modification” if the designer declares a type of move “illegal.”  This move is made/contemplated all the time.  If Larry calls foul…. then, what?

@Karl7:

@Karl7:

@Krieghund:

Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it.  But I do know that it’s legal.

Hmm, maybe check with him?

Again, I hate to be a pest, but this is a serious rule “modification” if the designer declares a type of move “illegal.”  This move is made/contemplated all the time.  If Larry calls foul…. then, what?

I mean, Krieg can you please check on this?  Can you please ask Larry with all respect and honor if this move is now illegal?  I submit the question humbly and with respect!  Thanks.

@Karl7:

@Karl7:

@Krieghund:

Well, since I don’t know exactly what Larry said, it’s hard for me to comment on it.  But I do know that it’s legal.

Hmm, maybe check with him?

Again, I hate to be a pest, but this is a serious rule “modification” if the designer declares a type of move “illegal.”  This move is made/contemplated all the time.  If Larry calls foul…. then, what?

That would be totally a bummer.  :|